Nice chart, but why do we care about inflation and interest rates in India?
Posted on 06/07/2005 8:14:42 PM PDT by A. Pole
Interesting. But in order to make expenses comparable to Chinese or Indian, the American worker would have either to move to China or India or to live on less than workers in these countries as housing/food/transportation/medical care is more expensive in USA.
Do you think it is possible?
Nice chart, but why do we care about inflation and interest rates in India?
You can find inflation figures pretty easily. So why are you interested in the inflation numbers?
Wrong? What is wrong? I wrote that the United States is not a Third World country or even close to being one. (Do you disagree?) And I pointed out that we are not without "experience and tech," which you admit is true.
My x-roommate who worked in development for Intel is a good example. His whole research department is now in Nizhni Novograd, he barely found a support job in Portland with Intel. Sybus moved their entire IT department to India and competitor Oracle hasn't been to far behind.
Well, your anecdotal evidence clinches it for me—American is doomed, because your roommate is working in tech support instead of research & development. Where can I find the nearest tall bridge?
Seriously, if you really are worried about high-tech jobs going overseas, I suggest you ask yourself why that is happening. Let me give you a hint: the purpose of a business is to make money for its owners.
Well at least his anecdote is better than his math.
Would that be compounded growth?
Yes.
All I could find about the effects of rapid import growth were the 20,000,000 jobs created since NAFTA and this chart.
Possible? Absolutely. According to one recent survey by Mercer Consulting (www.citymayors.com/features/cost_survey.html), Beijing is already slightly more expensive than New York, and Shanghai is only slightly less so.
Of course, such surveys are fraught with difficulties. (For one thing, the rankings depends greatly on the currency exchange rates.) Still, if a low cost of living alone made an area attractive to foreign business, we should soon see a stampede out of China to places like Asuncion, Paraguay.
But I don't think the article is using it in that sense. They've simply taken the gdp value between the start and end of ten years and thrown at us the figure of 108%.
Well, you're off by almost 24 hours, but that's passable error for a protectionist.
- remove all government workers, because I'm only interested in how private sector workers are doing. government workers do not add to the tax base, and they have contracts with built in wage increases, their salaries never go down. I could also make the case that people who work in health care are also "part time" government workers, since so much of the $$$s spent on health care (and on their salaries) come from government (medicaid, medicare).
- I would also remove all workers making over $250K a year, I don't want to see their wage increases in those figures. The reason is that if you include them, you include the concentration effects of what is happening in industry with offshoring. When oracle sends 1000 $75K engineers from the US to India, their US executives get big bonuses, while their now unemployed US workers are likely taking lower wages. When the executives at a US furniture company send their manufacturing jobs to China, they also increase their compensation as a result, their laid off workers are working at Home Depot now. The stats mean nothing if those concentration effects are not excluded.
Show me what is happening to the stats with those two filters applied - I guarantee you that middle class private sector wages have fallen over the last 5 years.
For the private sector, various figures with constant dollars are doable, but it's hard for me to eliminate the highly compensated with the available information sources that I am familiar with.
But leaving the highly compensated included, here in 1982 dollars are average hourly earnings for the total private sector from 1977 up through this year. (Source: BLS Statistics Gateway [just enter "CES0500000049" for your series id to retrieve this particular table.])
Series Id: CES0500000049 |
|||||||||||||
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1977 | 8.61 | 8.60 | 8.61 | 8.62 | 8.62 | 8.62 | 8.62 | 8.63 | 8.63 | 8.69 | 8.68 | 8.67 | |
| 1978 | 8.69 | 8.70 | 8.69 | 8.72 | 8.68 | 8.69 | 8.67 | 8.67 | 8.66 | 8.65 | 8.64 | 8.64 | |
| 1979 | 8.63 | 8.59 | 8.57 | 8.46 | 8.45 | 8.41 | 8.37 | 8.34 | 8.32 | 8.27 | 8.24 | 8.22 | |
| 1980 | 8.10 | 8.08 | 8.04 | 7.99 | 7.96 | 7.95 | 7.98 | 7.99 | 7.97 | 7.97 | 7.96 | 7.93 | |
| 1981 | 7.93 | 7.90 | 7.92 | 7.91 | 7.91 | 7.90 | 7.85 | 7.86 | 7.83 | 7.83 | 7.85 | 7.83 | |
| 1982 | 7.88 | 7.87 | 7.91 | 7.89 | 7.88 | 7.81 | 7.81 | 7.84 | 7.84 | 7.82 | 7.85 | 7.92 | |
| 1983 | 7.95 | 7.99 | 7.96 | 7.94 | 7.95 | 7.95 | 7.97 | 7.90 | 7.94 | 7.97 | 7.96 | 7.96 | |
| 1984 | 7.96 | 7.94 | 7.98 | 8.00 | 7.97 | 7.99 | 7.99 | 7.92 | 7.92 | 7.90 | 7.92 | 7.94 | |
| 1985 | 7.92 | 7.91 | 7.91 | 7.91 | 7.90 | 7.91 | 7.91 | 7.93 | 7.94 | 7.90 | 7.89 | 7.90 | |
| 1986 | 7.85 | 7.90 | 7.96 | 7.99 | 7.99 | 7.96 | 7.97 | 7.98 | 7.95 | 7.96 | 7.98 | 7.96 | |
| 1987 | 7.92 | 7.92 | 7.90 | 7.87 | 7.88 | 7.84 | 7.83 | 7.85 | 7.83 | 7.83 | 7.85 | 7.85 | |
| 1988 | 7.84 | 7.82 | 7.82 | 7.82 | 7.84 | 7.82 | 7.80 | 7.78 | 7.79 | 7.80 | 7.80 | 7.79 | |
| 1989 | 7.79 | 7.79 | 7.76 | 7.74 | 7.69 | 7.70 | 7.72 | 7.73 | 7.74 | 7.76 | 7.73 | 7.73 | |
| 1990 | 7.69 | 7.70 | 7.70 | 7.70 | 7.71 | 7.70 | 7.68 | 7.63 | 7.60 | 7.57 | 7.56 | 7.56 | |
| 1991 | 7.56 | 7.57 | 7.57 | 7.59 | 7.58 | 7.59 | 7.60 | 7.59 | 7.59 | 7.58 | 7.57 | 7.57 | |
| 1992 | 7.56 | 7.57 | 7.57 | 7.56 | 7.56 | 7.55 | 7.54 | 7.55 | 7.53 | 7.53 | 7.53 | 7.52 | |
| 1993 | 7.53 | 7.52 | 7.55 | 7.53 | 7.53 | 7.52 | 7.53 | 7.53 | 7.54 | 7.52 | 7.53 | 7.53 | |
| 1994 | 7.54 | 7.56 | 7.54 | 7.55 | 7.55 | 7.53 | 7.52 | 7.50 | 7.50 | 7.53 | 7.52 | 7.52 | |
| 1995 | 7.51 | 7.52 | 7.52 | 7.51 | 7.50 | 7.52 | 7.54 | 7.54 | 7.55 | 7.55 | 7.56 | 7.55 | |
| 1996 | 7.55 | 7.54 | 7.53 | 7.54 | 7.54 | 7.56 | 7.56 | 7.58 | 7.58 | 7.57 | 7.58 | 7.58 | |
| 1997 | 7.59 | 7.60 | 7.63 | 7.64 | 7.67 | 7.67 | 7.68 | 7.71 | 7.70 | 7.74 | 7.76 | 7.78 | |
| 1998 | 7.79 | 7.83 | 7.86 | 7.88 | 7.88 | 7.88 | 7.88 | 7.92 | 7.93 | 7.93 | 7.94 | 7.94 | |
| 1999 | 7.95 | 7.98 | 8.00 | 7.98 | 8.00 | 8.02 | 8.01 | 8.01 | 8.00 | 8.00 | 8.00 | 8.00 | |
| 2000 | 8.02 | 8.01 | 7.98 | 8.03 | 8.03 | 8.01 | 8.02 | 8.04 | 8.03 | 8.05 | 8.07 | 8.07 | |
| 2001 | 8.03 | 8.06 | 8.09 | 8.08 | 8.06 | 8.07 | 8.10 | 8.13 | 8.11 | 8.16 | 8.20 | 8.23 | |
| 2002 | 8.22 | 8.23 | 8.21 | 8.18 | 8.21 | 8.23 | 8.24 | 8.23 | 8.25 | 8.26 | 8.26 | 8.29 | |
| 2003 | 8.26 | 8.25 | 8.21 | 8.23 | 8.28 | 8.29 | 8.31 | 8.28 | 8.25 | 8.27 | 8.31 | 8.29 | |
| 2004 | 8.27 | 8.25 | 8.23 | 8.24 | 8.21 | 8.20 | 8.23 | 8.25 | 8.25 | 8.22 | 8.21 | 8.23 | |
| 2005 | 8.24 | 8.22 | 8.19 | 8.16(p) | |||||||||
| p : preliminary |
|||||||||||||
And here is the employment cost index for wages and salaries over roughly the same time period. The constant dollars are based on 1989=100, and are deflated by the CPI. (Source: Table 6 from the current Employment Cost Index report from the BLS.)
TABLE 6. EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX (WAGES AND SALARIES ONLY), PRIVATE INDUSTRY WORKERS(1)
(Constant dollars, not seasonally adjusted)
Indexes (June 1989=100) Percent Changes for
Series and year 3 months ended-- 12 months ended--
Mar. Jun. Sep. Dec.
Mar. Jun. Sep. Dec. Mar. Jun. Sep. Dec.
Private industry workers(1):
1975................................. - - 102.3 102.6 - - - 0.3 - - - -
1976................................. 103.7 103.8 103.8 104.9 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 - - 1.5 2.2
1977................................. 104.1 103.9 104.5 105.1 -.8 -.2 .6 .6 0.4 0.1 .6 .2
1978................................. 104.9 104.1 104.1 103.8 -.2 -.8 .0 -.4 .8 .2 -.3 -1.3
1979................................. 102.6 101.1 100.0 99.5 -1.1 -1.4 -1.1 -.5 -2.2 -2.9 -4.0 -4.1
1980................................. 97.6 96.5 97.2 96.5 -1.9 -1.1 .7 -.7 -4.9 -4.6 -2.8 -3.0
1981................................. 96.6 96.3 95.5 96.4 .1 -.3 -.9 .9 -1.0 -.2 -1.8 -.1
1982................................. 97.8 96.3 97.2 98.7 1.5 -1.5 .9 1.5 1.3 .0 1.8 2.4
1983................................. 99.5 99.0 99.2 99.7 .8 -.5 .2 .5 1.7 2.8 2.0 1.1
1984................................. 99.7 99.4 99.0 99.9 -.1 -.2 -.4 .9 .2 .4 -.2 .2
1985................................. 100.1 100.0 100.6 100.3 .1 -.1 .6 -.4 .4 .6 1.6 .3
1986................................. 101.7 101.9 102.0 102.3 1.5 .1 .1 .3 1.7 1.9 1.4 2.1
1987................................. 101.8 101.2 100.9 101.2 -.5 -.6 -.3 .3 .1 -.6 -1.1 -1.1
1988................................. 101.2 101.1 100.5 100.9 .0 -.1 -.6 .4 -.6 -.2 -.4 -.3
1989................................. 100.5 100.0 100.5 100.4 -.5 -.5 .5 -.1 -.7 -1.1 .0 -.5
1990................................. 99.5 99.8 98.6 98.4 -.9 .3 -1.3 -.2 -.9 -.2 -1.9 -2.0
1991................................. 98.6 98.9 98.9 99.0 .2 .3 -.1 .1 -.9 -.9 .3 .6
1992................................. 98.8 98.8 98.5 98.7 -.2 .0 -.2 .2 .2 -.1 -.3 -.3
1993................................. 98.4 98.5 99.0 99.1 -.3 .1 .5 .1 -.4 -.3 .4 .3
1994................................. 98.8 99.0 98.9 99.2 -.3 .2 -.1 .3 .4 .5 .0 .2
1995................................. 98.9 98.9 99.2 99.5 -.4 .0 .3 .4 .0 -.2 .2 .3
1996................................. 99.2 99.5 99.5 99.6 -.4 .3 .0 .1 .3 .6 .3 .1
1997................................. 99.7 100.4 100.9 101.8 .1 .7 .4 .9 .6 .9 1.4 2.2
1998................................. 102.3 102.7 103.6 104.0 .5 .4 .9 .4 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.2
1999................................. 103.9 104.3 104.2 104.9 -.2 .4 -.1 .6 1.5 1.6 .6 .8
2000................................. 104.3 104.7 104.9 105.3 -.5 .3 .2 .4 .4 .3 .6 .5
2001................................. 105.2 105.2 105.9 107.7 -.1 .0 .6 1.7 .9 .5 .9 2.2
2002................................. 107.4 107.8 107.6 108.0 -.3 .4 -.2 .4 2.0 2.5 1.7 .4
2003................................. 107.3 108.4 108.4 109.3 -.7 1.0 .0 .9 .0 .5 .7 1.1
2004................................. 108.2 107.6 108.4 108.4 -1.0 -.5 .7 .0 .8 -.7 .1 -.8
2005................................. 107.5 - - - -.8 - - - -.7 - - -
I should have added that we use the income from the tariffs to reduce the amount of revenue that we take from income taxes. Doing so shifts some of the tax burden from income taxes to tariffs. Then, those who pay the higher prices on imported goods will be paying for the costs of subsidizing construction of factories in other countries. Everyone else will recover some of the original cost of those subsidies by paying lower income taxes.
In a true "market" situation, the consumers of imported goods should be paying higher prices to offset the costs that were incurred in building the infrastructure to put factories overseas. By shifting some of the tax burden from income taxes that everyone pays to tariffs that are eventually paid by those who are buying imported goods, then we come closer to having prices reflect what the true market forces should have given us. As it is, we aren't under true market forces because in many cases, the American taxpayer paid much of the up front money that was needed to build foreign factories.
Bill
get past the semantics - client/subcontractor, whatever.
a nurse who works for a nursing home that is 100% funded by medicaid/medicare. is she a government worker? essentially, yes. not direclty, but indirectly her wages come from a government expenditure. cancel medicaid payments, she's on unemployment.
It's not a matter of how the article uses it. If they grew 108% over 10 years that's the same as 7.6% every year for 10 years, not 10.8% like you stated.
Why?
Thanks for the info. I don't know what he'll find to complain about now.
That'd work.
those 25000 GM workers who lose their auto jobs, they are going to be able to find other jobs at the same pay level. right? how about half their current pay level? or are they going to end up at walmart. and all those north carolina furniture workers going out, they are too, right? or are they going to end up at home depot.
the US used to be a place where even a high school graduate could get a job, skilled or semi-skilled, and afford the basics of a middle class life - including a wife who did not have to work, and children.
today, we have college graduates living with their parents into their 30s. and its not anecdotal, its becoming endemic.
believe what you want from the BLS, I know what I see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.